|
Post by braindeadzombie on Jan 3, 2009 19:21:56 GMT -5
So as an experiment, last night I showed Mrs. Atari (who's a peripheral MSTie, at best, and knows nothing about this debate) the first ten minutes of "The Doomsday Machine" followed by the short, "Are You Ready For Marriage". She laughed at both, and afterwards I asked her what differences she noticed. The first words out of her mouth: "In the first one they just seemed to be waiting for their turn to make a joke." By comparing an episode from Cinematic Titanic's second batch to a MST3k Season 6 short, are you just trying to prove what I said earlier? Thanks, I guess. I don't need the validation but I'll take it.
|
|
|
Post by CBG on Jan 4, 2009 10:13:03 GMT -5
You're a real wiseass, BDZ.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Jan 4, 2009 10:23:07 GMT -5
So as an experiment, last night I showed Mrs. Atari (who's a peripheral MSTie, at best, and knows nothing about this debate) the first ten minutes of "The Doomsday Machine" followed by the short, "Are You Ready For Marriage". She laughed at both, and afterwards I asked her what differences she noticed. The first words out of her mouth: "In the first one they just seemed to be waiting for their turn to make a joke." By comparing an episode from Cinematic Titanic's second batch to a MST3k Season 6 short, are you just trying to prove what I said earlier? Thanks, I guess. I don't need the validation but I'll take it. Jeez, man. Apart from having an attitude that makes me wish you'd never post on this board again, a feeling I think a lot of people share regardless of whether your opinions are valid or not, I think your logic's a touch shaky. Sure the CT team hasn't had a lot of time to create that chemistry. But at 6 years of MST, the crew had LESS combined experience at this kind of thing. Even granting that Joel and Josh had left, Trace still had a year more of riffing practice, Frank was still at it for the rest of season 6, and Mary Jo kept at it until the end of the run. It's not like CT was starting with no practice at this. But whatever. No one's saying that CT sucks, so I just don't get why you're so confrontational. Watch your tone or I'll delete your posts and your account. (Fascist implications very much intended.)
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jan 4, 2009 11:02:44 GMT -5
I’ll try to voice this without sounding condescending and insulting to Mr. A (or anyone else)
If you make watching these things as a sort of controlled experiment aren't you’re going to get that kind of response? If I brought in someone and had them watch a bit of MST, Ct and Rifftrax side by side, I’m sure I'd get a similar result. Whether I set it up or not, I'd be gearing the mind up to over think something.
And “over thinking” is the key word (and I know this is a hypocritical statement coming from a guy whose run a review site for the past 6 years) but it goes back to my original thought: While it's true, there are times when it comes off more scripted, it has become an exaggerated complaint. There’s a small, microscopic dot on an immense field of white. But people are focusing so much on that pinprick dot, that they are making it bigger than it is, and therefore missing the greater scope.
Funny thing I watched Doomsday Machine the other day and watched the first part with this complaint in mind…. And you know it just near ruined it. When I stopped over analyzing it and went back to simply enjoying the ride…. I started to enjoy myself in full again (and that wasn’t difficult, once Josh imitated Elton John and sang “Hold me closer Doomsday Dancer” I roared and relaxed)
I know y’all are saying it’s still funny, but I 've also heard folks say that they can’t fully enjoy themselves (in this and other threads as well). But could it be that in some cases that this is a barrier of your own making, your choosing to focus on the speck and keeping yourself from enjoying the field of white? (a question I've asked of myself over the years in regards to the website)
Edit for typos -sigh- even with spellcheck. lol
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Jan 4, 2009 11:51:29 GMT -5
I know y’all are saying it’s still funny, but I 've also heard folks say that they can’t fully enjoy themselves (in this and other threads as well). But could it be that in some cases that this is a barrier of your own making, your choosing to focus on the speck and keeping yourself from enjoying the field of white? (a question I've asked of myself over the years in regards to the website) I think that's certainly part of it. I can't help just wanting more MST, and deep down, I know that affects my reaction. But I also think that CT makes me react that way because of its closer similarity to the old stuff than Rifftrax. I don't get these same feelings of comparison with Rifftrax because, to me it seems different: big budget movies, not on screen. Those may be small differences, but CT seems so much closer to an MST experience that I can't help but feel the comparison, even if it's just those more superficial similarities (B movies, silhouettes, "host segments," etc.) All that said, once CT stats to feel like its own entity in the way that Rifftrax has done, I think, the differences won't be so apparent to me. By the way, people who disagree with someone else should pay attention to MJ's style. He was able to disagree without sounding like an asshole.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Jan 4, 2009 15:04:16 GMT -5
If you make watching these things as a sort of controlled experiment aren't you’re going to get that kind of response? If I brought in someone and had them watch a bit of MST, Ct and Rifftrax side by side, I’m sure I'd get a similar result. Whether I set it up or not, I'd be gearing the mind up to over think something. Yes and no. In spite of BDZ's condescending tone, he has made the point that comparing the incarnations will always leave one with criticisms. So, yes, a controlled experiment to compare will highlight the differences. But no, the point wasn't to find someone who agreed with my opinion (or overthink anything). The point was to take an unbiased observer and see what she thinks in the event that I'm making too big a deal about what might be a minor issue. Isn't that the complaint here? That people like me and mummi are making too big a deal about something we should just ignore? To wit: That's why I did the experiment. If it's that noticeable to an unbiased and casual observer, then I think it's a fair criticism and not an exaggerated one. But without any coaching from me, or even any prior discussion, it was the first thing she noticed. It's never been my point that I expect CT to be MST (sorry BDZ, but you're way off). It's also never been my point that this criticism of CT means CT isn't funny or that I can't enjoy it. My point is that the scripted delivery is a distraction and noticeable flaw that I really hope improves on future releases. Being told that I should just ignore it or that it's inappropriate to compare projects that the same people worked on is frustrating in its closed-mindedness. I don't want to diminish anyone else's enjoyment (especially yours, MJ). But there are a couple of us who share this opinion, and I think it deserves to be discussed fairly and respectfully. This is a discussion board, after all. And by no means am I intending to bash the Titans, who as far as I'm concerned, are unrivaled geniuses who are still producing unparalleled comedy.
|
|
|
Post by Mitchell on Jan 4, 2009 15:50:01 GMT -5
I think it's important to note that the production of CT and of MST3K are probably vastly different. MST3K was a full-time job, with rehearsals and the rest, for the cast and crew. CT happens in burst fashion whenever the principals can find the time to get together. MST was network-funded; CT is artist-funded. The equipment and environment available, along with the probable lack of rehearsal time probably contribute to the feeling that it doesn't flow as well.
Also, Mumms, I disagree with you. I don't think it's the cast that contribute as much as it is the crew. The editing, post-production work, and general technical work that goes on behind the scenes has a greater effect than the people out in front of the camera. I think that's where the difference lies. You could have all the riffing experience in the world in front of the camera, if it's a different crew it'll have a different feel. If it's a shoestring production, or an inexperienced crew (who would work cheap, a solid probability given CT is artist-funded) It will "feel" less smooth.
All that being said, I really like CT; much better than the other endeavors. The cast seems to be having fun with the material and CT seems to have the same heart as MST. Rifftrax seems a bit harsh to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Jack on Jan 4, 2009 19:16:28 GMT -5
Mr. A for my part - I wouldn't say it's a complaint, just an observation. And I can't tell you that you have to ignore it, you have a right to think and feel however you wish, I'm just throwing in my thoughts on the discussion. as to this.. I'm not accusing you of coaching or influenced in any way. But to my mind if someone were to sit me down and show me 10 minutes of 2 things I'm not all that interested in, my mind is going to automatically start calculating the reasoning. I'm going to observe and analyze and instead of casually watching this thing... My head is going into think mode and I'm going to anticipate that there is going to be a follow up question (hence, I might zero in on something that I wouldn't have noticed otherwise). I know others have voiced similar complaints about CTs delivery and it is a real distraction for them. So mostly, I'm just talking and discussing here. What I did here in this thread I do to myself. Sometimes when I look at my Strange Creatures review I scold myself, "Now Shawn, aren't you being silly about all this, you need to focus on the riffing man, get over the damned movie" and yet, I still haven't been able to do it despite my efforts and I'm sorry if I'm blathering/rambling - my brain isn't completely screwed on tight of late
|
|
|
Post by BoB3K on Jan 7, 2009 9:58:52 GMT -5
I agree with you mummi and atari--specifically on the wooden scripted responses and the choice of movies. My posts about it had a little more negative response than you guys have gotten. Perhaps I softened them up for you guys. I just wanted to say that the notion of not comparing the two shows and that they're different is a valid idea except that when you go to CTs website, right there above their name it says, "Movie Riffing 2.0" in big bold print. Also, about every article you read about them says something to the effect of "the show [MST3K] was reincarnated in late 2007 as Cinematic Titanic"* In that light, I don't see how you can't compare the two. I personally think I would have liked CT better if it hadn't been hyped so much as MST3K's successor, kind of like how RiffTrax was introduced as just another riffing gig Mike was trying out. RiffTrax was never hyped as an MST3K continuation, and it grew naturally into what it is today. I like RiffTrax for what it is, although not nearly as much as MST3K. I would actually seat CT right next to RiffTrax. I like it alright, just not nearly as much as MST3K. *taken from the Washington Post article that sky just linked us to.
|
|
|
Post by MonsterX on Jan 7, 2009 14:15:56 GMT -5
I’d say it’s the blogers and media who’ve hyped it up as MST’s spiritual successor rather than the CT crew. CT is its own thing and should be viewed as such, but natural there’s going to be comparisons for those who’ve seen both shows. They feature members of the same cast, it’s riffing on cheesy movies and it’s done in shadowrama.
MST was lightning in a bottle. Really, how you top that? I think CT is a great show by itself and I can easily forgive the more scripted feel of it, especially since it’s something they have really been improving on the past couple episodes. I only see them getting better over time.
|
|
|
Post by BoB3K on Jan 7, 2009 15:03:22 GMT -5
I’d say it’s the blogers and media who’ve hyped it up as MST’s spiritual successor rather than the CT crew. Oh, the media is definitely a big culprit, but with the very front of cinematictitanic.com stating "MOVIE RIFFING 2.0" and "FROM THE CREATOR AND ORIGINAL CAST OF MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000" you gotta admit that Joel has done just a little hyping of his own. Really, it's the 2.0 thing that kind of gets me. We all know that MST3K is being implied as 1.0, and it makes it sound like they're doing something that's building on MST3K and should be even better than MST3K, when it's not--and by that I mean, they really aren't trying to be more than MST3K. They're in fact being less--it's just us the artists, riffing a movie, and maybe just a small in-theater sketch every now and then. You can't really blame them for wanting to hype up their new show, but the flipside is that you're going to get more straight on comparisons and criticisms than if you didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Jan 8, 2009 0:17:14 GMT -5
I know I posted this a page back or so, but I want to repeat it to clarify my opinion; and because the more I think of my complaints, the more I think it's the answer. The Titans are writing from different parts of the country, not together. And they're writing for live shows as much as (if not more than) for a recorded performance. Because of that, the scripted delivery makes sense and I can live with it. It doesn't explain the yucky movie choices though.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Jan 8, 2009 8:59:42 GMT -5
It doesn't explain the yucky movie choices though. Heh. Personally, I love these. The worse, the better, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by mylungswereaching on Jan 8, 2009 11:13:53 GMT -5
Do you think doing all the live shows helps their timing? If they do some of the movies live before taping them, wouldn't that count as practice? Getting paid to practice should help the later episodes.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Jan 8, 2009 11:33:37 GMT -5
It doesn't explain the yucky movie choices though. Heh. Personally, I love these. The worse, the better, in my opinion. I agree that the worse, the better. But there's plenty of ineptitude in other genres besides the '60s-'70s-grotesque-gore-freaks-dwarf-blood films. Where's the '50s B&W drive-in fare? Roger Corman? Bert I. Gordon? Lippert? Obscure made-for-TV movies? Giant bug films? What of Peter Graves and Merritt Stone?!? I know, I know, CT isn't MST. And 6 episodes is a very small sample size. But there's only so much Legacy of Blood and its ilk I can stomach.
|
|